JUDGMENT Mishra, J. In this writ application the Nirala Sahkari Griha Nirman Samity Ltd. is the petitioner, who has prayed for quashing the order dated 8.7.87 and also 10.8.87 passed by respondent no.4 on the back of the sale deed presented for registration and further for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to register sale deed presented for registration. 2. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the society registered under the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act and it carries on business in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the rules framed there under. It is alleged that the petitioner for the purpose of providing housing facilities purchased a parcel of land measuring nine kathas in Mauza Saidpur within Digha Police Station which falls under the same Gram Panchayat, appertaining to plot no. 2403 of khata no. 1951 through registered sale deed dated 12.04.83. It is alleged that the petitioner has obtained permission as provided under the appropriate provisions of the Act and the permission was granted by the Collector vide permission no. 346 dated 24.1.83 although, according to the learned counsel, no permission is required for such purchases as the land falls within the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat. It is further alleged that for the lame purpose the petitioner purchased several bighas of lands in and near Hajipur appertaining to plot no. 1659 khata no. 139. At the request of respondent no. 5 the petitioner agreed to sell 2 dhurs of lands out of the lands appertaining to plot no. 1654, khata no. 139 in village Mail, P. S. Bldupur, in the district of Vaishali, for a sum of Rs. 6000/-only. The sale deed was, accordingly, executed and was presented before respondent District Sub-Registrar, Vaishali for registration on 10.8.87. The District Sub-Registrar, Vaishali, has refused to register the sale deed and made an endorsement to that effect on the back to it relying upon the letter issued by the Inspector General of Registration. 6000/-only. The sale deed was, accordingly, executed and was presented before respondent District Sub-Registrar, Vaishali for registration on 10.8.87. The District Sub-Registrar, Vaishali, has refused to register the sale deed and made an endorsement to that effect on the back to it relying upon the letter issued by the Inspector General of Registration. The reason assigned by the District Sub Registrar is that since the major portion of the land falls in the Patna town and in terms of the direction issued by the Inspector General of Registration, the said sale deed cannot be registered Mere perusal of the letter dated 8th July, 1987 sent to the District Registrar, it appears that the Inspector General of Registration bas directed the registering authority not to register the sale deed with respect to the land falling within the urban area as the executants in such cases execute the sale deed in order to avoid the provisions of the Urban Ceilling Act, copy of the said letter is made Annexure -1 to this writ application. 3. Mr. Ojha learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the direction issued by the Inspector General of Registration as well as the endorsement made by the respondent no. 4 refusing to register the document on the ground that a part of the land sought to be registered admittedly falls within the jurisdiction of Hajipur and, as such, the District Registrar is bound to register the sale deed. In support of his contention Mr. Ojha has referred to Section 28 of the Ragistration Act, 1908. In order to appreciate the argument of Mr. Ojha, Section 28 of the Act has to be taken note of, which reads as follow : "28. Place for registering documents relating to land-Save as in this Part otherwise provided, every document mentioned in section 17, sub-section (1) clauses (a), (b), (C), (d) and (e), Section 17, sub section (2), in so far as such document affect immovable property and Section 18, Clauses (a), (b), (c) shall be presented for registration in the office of a Sub-Registrar within whose sub district the whole or some portion of the property to which such document relates is situate." Mere perusal of the provision, as quoted above, it appears that the document can be presented for registration where even part of the land falls within that jurisdiction. Admittedly, some of the portion of the land sought to be registered through the impugned sale deed is situated within the jurisdiction of Hajipur registry and, as such, the registering authority cannot refuse to register the document merely on the instruction having been issued by the Inspector General of Registration. The provision, as quoted. above, bas not been amended so far as submitted by Mr. Ojha, which has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the State respondents. That apart, eyen though according to the learned counsel the lands do not come within the mischief of the Urban Ceiling Act yet the petitioner has obtained the permission from the respondent Collector in order to avoid any future complication. Specific statement bas been made in paragraph 6 of the petition in this case, neither any counter affidavit has been filed nor the statement made in the writ petition in being disputed in course of argument. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the respondent District Sub-Registrar has committed an illegality in refusing to register the document pre8ented for registration by the petitioner. Unless Section 28, as quoted above, is amended, the same cannot be ignored by issuing the executive instruction. 4. In the result, the order passed by respondent District Sub-Registrar refusing to register the document, is hereby quashed and he is directed to register the document forthwith. This writ application is accordingly, allowed but in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Application allowed.